Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Choi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Choi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local politician. Fails

WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the GNG particularly the significant coverage regarding the dismissal of the city manager.Ndołkah (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no in depth coverage of Choi. I fail to see how this possibly meets NPOL as a "vice mayor" of a small city. Unless there is significant in-depth coverage of Choi and not just "x is councilperson of y", this fails all our N criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when an article mentions that an individual eulogized another person we are going into clearly non-notable concerns. This is local news stuff, not encyclopedic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we delete before deleting can we merge into the city council article?Ndołkah (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ravensfire (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - lacks in-depth coverage in
WP:RS Celestina007 (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Richmond CA is not large enough to confer guaranteed inclusion rights on its city councillors just because they exist. For any of its city councillors to clear the notability bar, they would have to show either (a) preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) a depth and range of coverage that expanded significantly beyond what every city councillor in every city is simply expected to always be able to show, such that they had a credible claim to being of much more nationalized prominence than the norm. But this doesn't show either of those things at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NPOL per nom Dartslilly (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.